Apparently, HIV Doesn't Cause AIDS

Not sure what Mr. Bill's agenda is here, posting up this insane, dangerous advice. But, he's a fucking nut and ought to be shut down by the mods IMHO. Originally Posted by timpage

No, it just proves that there are false positives. Originally Posted by joe bloe

yah, but heres the rub.

having a false positive can kill one if one is taking those AZT meds.

JD,

This thread should remain open, not closed.

This thread contained a lot of info I was unaware previously. I did have a skepticism about the nature of hiv/aids which sounded like a "magic virus" when it first came out. The big clincher was Magic Johnson, he was said to have HIV but was never afflicted with AIDS. He's something of a fly in the ointment as well as other people like him.

I didn't know this thing about Dr. Gallo, his fraudulent papers, nor what was going on in africa.

Dr. Gallo, who first came out with the claim on HIV/AIDS in the early 80's, was investigated by a number of agencies including the Secret Service. They determined that his claim was fraudulent. If that is the case, what does this say about the research that came from Gallo which was supported as fact by the "mainstream" scientists.

And finally, someone said that "viruses knows no borders". I don't know about you, but I find it strange that there are 3 different definitions of AIDS, the American version, the European version which is similar to the American version with some differences and finally the African version which is even more bizarre since no HIV test is required for diagnosis. Hows is it that AIDS is the exception to the rule when it (affects everyone the same way) governs many different types of virus like Gonorrhea, Syphilis, TB & etc.

And the fact that there a fair number of people who were identified as having HIV were given AZT medication which was a banned anti-cancer chemo-therapy drug in the 50's. Its a powerful poison, patients were getting sick and dying from it with no chance of recovery. They realized that they were getting sick because of the medication and got off it. Their return to health really pretty much says it.

HIV/AIDS has a lot of parallels with climate change/global warming. Money is probably a driving factor in both of them, only difference between them is the weather and viruses.

What bothers me the most is that these doctors are committing a form of malpractice by giving their patients AZT derivatives on the basis of their them having HIV without checking to see if they really need it or to see of other causes for their sickness. Basically, their position is, you got HIV, you need to take AZT derived drugs.

I think listening to the government over this is dangerous. Doesn't hurt to have an open mind on this. And it shouldn't be a closed issue, allow others to make up their own minds on this.

if you think Mr. Bill is so full of shit for posting this material, feel free to debunk this by posting proof of HIV/AIDS connection which Dr. Duesberg, and Dr. Mullis never found. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

VERY well-spoken DF - my thoughts exactly.

In fact, it wasn't too long ago that I also believed HIV = AIDS and it was a death sentence. Though when you think about it, a belief is nothing more than second hand information - information that could represent someone else's agenda. Like you, after looking into the whole HIV/AIDS picture, I found there were a ton of inconsistencies which didn't jibe with the status quo's explanation.

And now, many doctors, believing the government and thinking they were helping their patients, have inadvertently killed millions of people - simply because they tested positive for an HIV test - which BTW doesn't even identify an HIV virus. Whether or not it weighs heavy on their conscious, I doubt most doctors will ever admit they were wrong - instead, they'll blame it on the FDA or CDC, etc.

The real atrocity is that murder by AZT and AIDS drugs - based on faulty science and corruption at the highest levels - continues worldwide unabated.

.

...

I think listening to the government over this is dangerous. Doesn't hurt to have an open mind on this. ... Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Then don't listen to them. Listen to your doctor. And "open-mindedness" has never been defined as "tolerance of falsehood." That's the definition of ignorance.

yah, but heres the rub.

having a false positive can kill one if one is taking those AZT meds. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

That's correct.

Problem is, the information which doctors rely upon to make the decision to give their patients life-threatening AIDS drugs - are the medical journals - which are 100% controlled by a central agency.

This is the same data that journalists use to report on HIV/AIDS to the public - and beyond Gallo's crimes of misinfo, it's the reason why people believe the lie that HIV is deadly and AIDS drugs save lives.

.

GOOD JOB, MR. BILL! (and other people need to learn how to spell before making ignorant comments... just saying...) I don't want to mention names, but it starst with "WT"--- LOL!

I have seen "House of numbers" and totally agree that AIDS is a hoax.

GOOD JOB, MR. BILL! (and other people need to learn how to spell before making ignorant comments... just saying...) I don't want to mention names, but it starst with "WT"--- LOL! Originally Posted by Isabel

Thanks Isabel - glad to hear you think this thread about HIV/AIDS has merit.

I have seen "House of numbers" and totally agree that AIDS is a hoax. Originally Posted by Isabel

I watched it online for free - the website, House of Numbers offers a lot of other material if you purchase the Deluxe Edition disk...

House of Numbers Deluxe Edition

One Standard DVD + Two Additional DVDs with Special Features:




Behind-the-scenes:

Extended Interviews

31 Featurettes:

HIV Testing

• HIV Testing 101
• False Positives: Causes and Factors
• History and Evolution of HIV Testing
• Reading the Fine Print: HIV Test Inserts
• The Changing Criteria of Western Blot Testing
• Deciphering Test Results for False Positives
• Examining the "Gold Standard"
• Rapid Testing in High Risk vs. Low Risk Populations
• HIV Testing Campaigns

A I D S

• CDC: Initial AIDS Definition
• Clinical AIDS: A New Disease
• A Growing Family: AIDS Marker Diseases and Indicators
• Creating an African AIDS Definition
• Bangui: AIDS By Numbers
• Bangui: Peripheral Psychological Damage
• Bangui Redux: National Variations in AIDS Definitions
• Through a Glass Darkly: African AIDS Statistics
• Bangui Westernized
• Politics and Public Health: A Study in Conflict
• CD4 T-Cell Count Marker: Medical Application
• Addition by Subtraction: 1997 CDC Tables 11 and 12

Deconstructing a House of Numbers: Experts Examine Global HIV/AIDS Statistics

• Dr. James Chin
• Rian Malan
• Dr. Charles Geshekter

A Second Look

• Dr. Don Francis on Dr. Robert Gallo
• Dr. Peter Duesberg: A Cautionary Tale

"Why I Began Questioning HIV" - Five Skeptics' Stories

• Dr. Kary Mullis
• Rian Malan
• Neville Hodgkinson
• Dr. Rodney Richards
• Dr. Christian Fiala

.

FYI, this is just an observation on my part. the corruption of the FDA and its subsidiary agencies like the CDC and the NIH had its start in the late 60's and early 70's when presidents LBJ & Nixon started appointing business men from the medical industries, some of whom may have a medical degrees instead of scientists or doctors as directors of these agencies. they have a different mindset than the scientists or doctors.

Its quite a shift for the FDA since its creation. It went from protecting consumers (which they now do only as a pretense) to protecting industry.

FDA has been noted for its dubious decisions on a number of drugs they okayed only to have to recall them and later ban them from the market.

One of the best examples of FDA protecting the industry is the way they prevented/disallowed the introduction of Truvia (It is a natural sweetener that is 1000 times sweeter than cane sugar and comes from a plant grown in South America) in the U.S. in 1982. They ignored the fact that this product was safely used in japan for 40 years and by South American tribes that used it for centuries. They basically said that this product was not safe and further studies were needed. Its only the last 3 years that the FDA changed it stance over allowing Truvia, they added a condition that a sugar component like fructose or sucrose be added to truvia. product was suppressed by request in a sealed complaint to the FDA. Its alleged that the complainant was either the artificial sweetener manufactures or the soft drink companies.
.
its one example that I'm aware of . I'm sure there are better ones. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

as usual, made an error here. the sugar plant I was referring is called Stevia, not Truvia. Truvia is the name of a Stevia based sweetener product.

Celia Farber

Celia Farber has written on the issues and controversies surrounding HIV and AIDS for more than a decade. She is a regular contributor to Esquire, Spin, USA Today, and Gear, among other U.S. publications.

Go here for an interview with Farber.

Click here for a story about the HIV-AIDS controversy, and here for an article about the AIDS industry.

Farber wrote several articles about AZT, you will find them here, here, here and here.

Here is an article about 'cocktail' therapy, and here a more recent one about its failure.

Here is her article about HIV and breastfeeding, and here is an article about HIV positive pregnant women.

An article about the HIV-AIDS tests can be found here, another one here.

For the story of her journey to Africa go here and here. An article about the recent developments concerning HIV-AIDS in South Africa can be found here, another one here.

Go here for still more...

.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

for a journalist, she's quite a hottie.

The so called cocktail has been reasonably effective in controlling the HIV virus. The virus is reduced to levels that are sometimes undetectable with the use of the cocktail. Along with the reduction in the amount of HIV in the blood stream has come a reduction in symptoms and increased life expectancy.

If HIV does not cause AIDS, then why does the reduction in the amount of HIV brought about by the cocktail result in a reduction of symptoms?

I have seen "House of numbers" and totally agree that AIDS is a hoax. Originally Posted by Isabel

That's good to know. You should put that in your profile. May help business.

The so called cocktail has been reasonably effective in controlling the HIV virus. The virus is reduced to levels that are sometimes undetectable with the use of the cocktail. Along with the reduction in the amount of HIV in the blood stream has come a reduction in symptoms and increased life expectancy.

If HIV does not cause AIDS, then why does the reduction in the amount of HIV brought about by the cocktail result in a reduction of symptoms? Originally Posted by joe bloe

Unless you're speaking from personal experience, this is gibberish.

First of all, there are no tests which can detect the HIV non-virus. Secondly and contrary to the layman's perspective and media misinformation, HIV has never been isolated in human blood from anyone defined as having AIDS. Third and most important, the AIDS meds to which you refer, cause the very symptoms which define AIDS.

Considering the propensity of the individual to withstand the onslaught of chemical poisoning (antiretroviral meds), there are almost an infinite number of variables which contribute to the longevity of life and the appearance of health from one person to the other.

The elephant in the living room is the fact that those who don't take the AIDS drugs live, while those who do take them develop disease (from a compromised immune system) and die shortly afterwards.

I don't know where you obtained this point of view, but it couldn't be more incorrect.

.

The Non-Science of HIV/AIDS
5 Minute Video Exposes The Corruption

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v...EbHg&vq=medium




"Watson, how many times have I told you, whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth."
- Sherlock Holmes

.

Unless you're speaking from personal experience, this is gibberish.

First of all, there are no tests which can detect the HIV non-virus. Secondly and contrary to the layman's perspective and media misinformation, HIV has never been isolated in human blood from anyone defined as having AIDS. Third and most important, the AIDS meds to which you refer, cause the very symptoms which define AIDS.

Considering the propensity of the individual to withstand the onslaught of chemical poisoning (antiretroviral meds), there are almost an infinite number of variables which contribute to the longevity of life and the appearance of health from one person to the other.

The elephant in the living room is the fact that those who don't take the AIDS drugs live, while those who do take them develop disease (from a compromised immune system) and die shortly afterwards.

I don't know where you obtained this point of view, but it couldn't be more incorrect.

. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

Well, you've had your 15 minutes of disinformation. I think Joe Blow like most crazy loons on street corners this one just needs to be ignored.